Taste Sensitivity and Wine Preference

WINE TALK
1

Was listening to the Grape Radio interview of Alice Feiring – a great piece (thank you Jay) from a very charming and well spoken woman if you ask me – and she mentioned that one reason why she prefers the wines she prefers is she’s always had an abnormally sensitive taste and smell ability. She wouldn’t comment on whether she’s a good taster, i.e. whether she has great skill at interpreting the messages she receives from her organoleptic facilities, just that she’s always been more sensitive than the average person.

This got me to thinking that maybe I’ve evolved the same sensitivity, and that I’ve gotten more so the less wine I’ve been drinking. Case in point is the ’05 DDO Laurene I had the other day that seemed a very big wine to me. If DDO is seeming forward, what’s a more mainstream domestic Pinot going to do to me?

One other possibility for my increased sensitivity? I’ve been eating low carb, or near low carb, for quite a while now. This would, I think, affect not just my appetite or tolerance for sweetness in wine, but for other aspects too. (I’ve noticed, for instance, that I can’t stand nearly as much salt on my food as before. And I’m noticing flavors in food that used to not affect me).

Thoughts?

2

Scientific studies have established variation in taste sensitivity–in which taste sensitivity means sensitivity to the basic tastes, sweet, bitter, sour, salty, umami (as opposed to the vast majority of what we call taste that actually comes via smell). People who are more sensitive than the norm, as might be expected, tend to like bland foods since they will experience foods as too salty, too bitter, etc. well before normal tasters will. Despite desires to be better than others in one’s chosen field, it is very unlikely that such unusually sensitive tasters would end up wine and food critics. It would be like someone who hears sound vibrations higher and lower than most human beings becoming a music critic. They would hear things in the music that one isn’t meant to hear and their responses would therefore be less useful.

You might well have “evolved” a sensitivity that has affected your preferences. This has nothing to do with actually being physiologically more sensitive. It has to do with having learned to pay more attention to some things than perhaps others do, which virtually defines what one does when one is interested in something. You can, of course, call that being more sensitive if it pleases you.

3

No question sensitivities change over time, for most if not everyone. In my experience they do so both voluntarily and involuntarily. For a voluntary example when I was first worked in a restaurant I drank too much soda. At some point I could no longer take the sweetness, so a somewhat involuntary response to stimulus. I wanted to switch to tea but had difficulty with the taste so over a few months I gradually added less and less sugar to my tea until I actually preferred it unsweetened (still do). That is a voluntary change. I have also trained myself over time to like(even relish) various foods and that I initially did not, olives for example.

In both food and drink, over a long period of time, I have noted that these changes can eventually be graphed in a sort of bell curve fashion. Place intensity on the Y axis and time on the X axis. What you will see is that acceptability of sensory intensity rises with time but eventually reaches a peak and then declines to what I would call a somewhat happy medium. Relating this to wine, many start off drinking fairly fruit white wines, then move to fruity light reds, but at some point inevitably get into full throttle Parkerized face smashers. Then at some point, similar to my soda analogy, you find them too much and you dial it back over time and eventually come to the inevitably correct conclusion that Pinot Noir and Nebbiolo of the most expensive and unattainable variety is of course the best. Then you could also place another scale on the right hand Y axis that represents sensitivity. This plot would be the opposite of the intensity plot where you become less sensitive over time reaching a negative apex and then become more sensitive once again. Refinement if you will.

For some, and I think this is less prevalent, food can follow a similar path. Of course there are a few more components to consider in food those being sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and umami. I started learning to cook in college and over many years those components have followed the same trajectory as the wine analogy. This all varies widely based on exposure and willingness to change, but would essentially remain true I believe. You begin to accept richer and more intense flavors and then over time you begin to realize that you want a bit of each but with balance and subtlety. Eventually you find yourself critiquing seasonings and acid balance of dishes prepared by trained chefs and watching far too much Food Network, you call yourself an epicurean and others might find snob more appropriate.

So in summary I think there is quite a bit going on from both a voluntary and involuntary sensory standpoint. The changes in perception accelerate more rapidly and less rapidly at times, but I think to a degree they are always there. This of course assuming the range of selections does not stagnate over time, which for some, is permanent.

4

And yet here we have Feiring. Certainly explains her preferences for understated wines. In a music critic with an analogous condition, I suppose all she’d want to recommend would be Bach cello suites or Palestrina’s compositions.

By the way, I think my going low carb is the answer, moreso than my consuming less. (And I’m not saying that Alice is a low carber. I’d be very surprised since she’s a vegetarian). But anyone try a low carb diet and notice changes in how one senses one’s food, how sweets become not just undesirable but often sickening? This is physiological and not related to choice or experience. I’d be willing to bet that those who consume more carbohydrates in their diets prefer bigger wines. It’d be an interesting experiment.

5

Part of what I was trying to say is that the physiologic response is too intertwined with the sensory response to separate them as experience is always part of the equation. Spontaneous moderation will always elicit a change. When you are curtailing carbs your body becomes very accustomed to an attenuated glycemic response. A sudden spike of sugar can result in just what you describe, sickening. And if a wine is perceived as sweet, even though there is no residual sugar, you may get the same response. Your body can manifest real physiologic change without any real physiologic input whatsoever, ergo, placebo effect.

And for your second posit, I don’t think it would mean high carbers prefer them but they may be inclined to be more accommodating.

6

I don’t understand the difference. Sensory response is physiologic, no?

7

Getting into semantics at this point so we’ll need to agree on some definitions. Sensory is certainly physiologic, but in the context I used physiologic is the physical chemical change/input while sensory is the signal to the brain and ends there. Since we have no idea how to empirically quantify physiologic manifestation due to sensory input or vice versa, I just separate the two. It’s necessary for my argument that experience and current habits play a large part in your perceptions, while ever changing, with perceptions being formed at all times in an equation adding experience, physiologic, and sensory inputs. I am an engineer by profession so bear with my equations and boundary conditions. I don’t mean them as law, it’s just my language.

In my mind your original question was, does my diet change have have an impact on my sensory perceptions? You then go on to posit the perceptions are not experience based, but purely physiologic.

My contention is to agree with you, yes it is likely a diet change impacts your perceptions. But I would stipulate it is entirely unclear what part of that is physiologic(actual chemical interaction), experience based, or sensory based. I would also stipulate that the only one of those that potentially doesn’t play a part is physiologic. Another facet of that argument stated before is that you could actually have a physiologic reaction to the wine, but it is absent any real physiologic input, only sensory. And if you really want to know what I think, sensitivity is overwhelmingly decided by how much attention you afford it. So while I agree with your premise, I do not agree that you can separate experience, sensory, and physiologic manifestations.

I would also have you clarify what going low carb actually means. Carbs are simple sugars to fiber. A question might be have you just curtailed the total volume of simple carbs or have you reduced total carb volume while increasing fiber proportionately? They have different insulin responses and would have more correlation to your perception of sweet/richness.

It’s an interesting question. One that I’ve made an entirely unclear answer of.

8

But I was being skeptical about Feiring’s claim. Parker has also claimed that he has unusually sensitive taste abilities. Since they don’t have any real basis for comparison, they really have only their own ego as the basis for the claim. I could claim I can fly. It wouldn’t make it so.

9

With respect to taste and smell, I think there’s an interplay between your physiological responses and your mind. Several years ago, Tom Hill’s tasting group evaluated some experimental syrah from California that I think had been produced by UC Fresno (I’m sure Tom will correct me if I’m wrong). The wine was naturally 18% alcohol, but a lot of the alcohol was removed and then added back to produce the same wine with different alcohol percentages. The group evaluated which versions of the syrah they preferred.

I and one other person liked the 13.35% and 13.6% versions the best. The group as a whole tended to prefer 14.75% to 15.5%. Two people preferred the 18% version.

What I learned from the experiment is that sensitivity to the presence of “too much” alcohol in a wine varied quite a lot within even a small group of people (14-16). This is a group that used to taste primarily zinfandel, which frequently had a lot of alcohol. I would have guessed that a certain amount of tolerance to alcohol had been learned by the group. I don’t know why I didn’t develop the same tolerance, but I didn’t.

Interestingly, over time, the members of the group have become much more sensitive to what I view as excessively alcoholic wines. I don’t know why that is exactly – my surmise is that it’s an interplay between inherent sensitivity and what people have learned they like, over time – but it has definitely happened.

On the other hand, sensitivity to TCA does not seem to vary over time, once someone has learned what it is. Those who are super-sensitive remain super-sensitive. Those who are relatively insensitive remain that way. And the rest of us are in between.

With respect to sound and music appreciation, there is actually some data to work with. I used to publish a magazine about sound reproduction (Stereophile), and have some experience with evaluating at least reproduced sound. There are natural limitations to the ability to hear sounds at varying frequencies, and those limitations increase with age and exposure to loud sounds and other forms of trauma. In controlled studies, the people who have the most replicable judgments about, say, loudspeakers are the ones with fewest hearing limitations, particularly in the broad middle of the hearing spectrum (30Hz to 15kHz). People who have “dropouts” – bands of the spectrum where their hearing isn’t very good – are less good at evaluating loudspeakers.

But, in sound reproduction, the most significant factor, in my experience, is the judgment that people make about what they hear. Just as in wine evaluation, some people make good judgments and others don’t, at least from my point of view.

10

Fascinating! Thanks for the anecdote, Larry. Any notes left from that session?

11

Low carb is restricting your daily nonfiber carbohydrate intake below a certain amount thereby forcing the body to use other macronutrients for energy. At first, the body uses fat stores but then after a period of time will ramp up gluconeogenesis, which is the production of glucose from protein. (This is why low carb diets plateau. You just need at that point to ensure you’re moderating your protein intake as well).

12

I see no reason to be skeptical about her claim that she’s more sensitive than the average person. In the Grape Radio interview she didn’t present it as being a blessing, at least for most her life. And, again, she avoids the jump from taste sensitivity to super powers with respect to interpreting the data that sensitivity gives her.

Am I missing your point?

13

It has been noticed that sensitive people have a great ability to sense the smell of different things. These people just by smelling can tell whether the food is sour, sweet, bitter, salty etc. One of my friend had this ability as she could judge the quality of the wine just by smelling it. [cheers.gif]

14

[quote=But I was being skeptical about Feiring’s claim. Parker has also claimed that he has unusually sensitive taste abilities. Since they don’t have any real basis for comparison, they really have only their own ego as the basis for the claim. I could claim I can fly. It wouldn’t make it so.[/quote]

That statement is certainly true, but as you said earlier, studies have shown “super tasters” exist. Those individuals have a higher density of tastebuds and greater sensitity to smells. That was addressed in Elin McCoy’s The Emporer of Wine: The Rise of Robert M. Parker Jr. and the Reign of American Taste. It does exist. Parker’s dad claimed, and proved (allegedly) that with a blindfold on he could smell a dog’s breed. If that isn’t total bullshit, and Parker inherited his father’s sensory abilities, he may very well be a super taster.

You may be one too. Ha. Check out this test:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/supertaster/

15

I certainly don’t believe that we all smell/taste things the same or to the same degree. The problem with the argument in this thread is…

  • Unless Alice has undergone some testing that objectively shows she has an abnormally high taste sensitivity, then her statement to the point is really just her belief, and therefore doesn’t make a basis for the premise in this thread.

  • The “dog breed smelling test” does I suppose make for some kind of an objective test of nasal sensitivity, or at least some kind of advanced training (that I wouldn’t care to undertake). Anyway adding RMP to the list of supertasters doesn’t support the theory that such people would prefer a more nuanced wine [wow.gif]

  • If we can accept that Alice’s elevated taste sensitivity is real, and has lead her to prefer AFWE-style wines, does it therefore follow that people who prefer these wines must also share this elevated taste sensitivity? (Stated rhetorically; I’m assuming here that university-level philosophy programs include a course or two in logic.)

What’s the core point here - that there must be a physiological basis for different preferences? Yes or no, there’s no there there. Drink what you like, so you may like what you drink [cheers.gif]

16

There is for the non-learned sensitivities, though how many it ends up being is uncertain. For now, your genome CAN be tested for Supertasting, where you taste bitter more than others (sprouts, tea, tannins etc). I had it tested and am one such sensitive sort, and hate young PS. And most brown teas. and eat Sprouts gingerly. About 25% of Westerners have this, I believe.

17

A very reasonable point of view. Half of what Feiring says is for shock value. The other half is to placate her ego. It’s a bit of hyperbole on my part, but she really is a counterpart to Parker on the opposite end of the preference spectrum. To validate her preferences, she needs to claim similarly elevated skills.

Maybe it is true, maybe it is not what she claims. Super-tasters in a scientific sense tend to be averse to less sweet wines, and Feiring’s preferences for less ripe wines that often have green or bitter elements make me doubt she is a super-taster.

She clearly does find certain qualities overwhelming negative, but is that a heightened sensitivity or strong preference? Wine and food appreciation rely upon experience, a strong taste and smell memory, and a capacity to analyze sensory data. Much of this is learned and improved upon by focus upon what one eats and drinks.

18

“Abnormally Sensitive” is ambiguous. It seems to me it can mean one or more of the following:

  1. Experiences taste withing the “standard” spectrum more intensely than normal.
  2. Is able the taste finer degrees of detail within the standard spectrum.
  3. Is able to taste outside the standard spectrum (ie. experiences tastes most people can’t).

Not to mention that one’s attitude can be a factor in determining how we taste.
If one has a strong belief that certain tastes are especially good or bad one will likely react more strongly to those tastes even if ones “physical tasting aparatus” is within the normal range.

Pat

19

I went low carb this year, or, more accurately, low simple carbs - I’ll still do the really complex carbs, or those with high fiber content like fruit. I’m concentrating more on glycemic index, specifically.

That said, I didn’t see any change in my taste sensitivity or wine preference. I’ve always been oversensitive to ‘tastes’ (as established already here, they are smells more than tastes), and one only has to look at the sheer volume of my nostrils to know why. I have, however, experienced what you have regarding salt - many foods seem over salted to me now as well.

Kudos on the Palestrina reference, btw

20

Much of the above seems to me an excuse for people to feel they’re different and perhaps superior.